SSPX Could Return This Week - Agreement With Rome Near

[Dale_M]

Is this “Fr. Z” the Father Zullsdorft ( probably not spelling it right) that leads the retreats in Connecticut? the St. Francis ones?

He is based in Rome, but his blog says that he is often in the US and is available for retreats and conferences. wdtprs.com/blog/

 

[piouswoman]

Dear piouswoman

I realize your defenses are up and rightly so, but recognizing “cultist” characterists and trying to help another to see these are really the truest charity one can give another. People in a cult do not recognize that they are. Please go to and read this…

www.whyiamacatholic.com/SSPX//CultCharacteristics.htm

Please do not take offense, but really read all this site has to say. You may find that you feel differently, too. Or at least, it’ll give you something else to think about. Please, please, read it.

There was nothing there, and it expired on 6/20. I take no offense at your trying at all…even though it is useless…I have seen the poisonous anti-SSPX sites before. More importantly, I would suggest to you, read the history of the Second Vatican Council…read about the history of Archbishop LeFebvre and the consecrations, read this website:
sspx.org/
Thanks…

 

[GerardP]

This is the same excuse use by extremists of both sides, they went so far the wrong way that they end up together.

Actually you are referring to the sedevacantists. The SSPX are about as extreme as Catholics of the 1940 and 1950s.

The idea that “the mean between extremes is the truth” doesn’t hold.

Pope St.Pius X talked about a “species of compromise between progressive and conservative forces” that basically were a fast and slow form of liberalism. Extreme liberals push the boundaries, the Conservatives hold back and compromise with the middle. The liberals move further down the road, the conservative once again compromises to the middle.

So, what was once the mainstream (eg. SSPX-style Catholicism) is now the “extreme” only relative to the liberal slide of the conservatives and liberals.

 

[KathleenElsie]

So Margrite was right? I just wanted to bold this so that no one missed who we are dealing with when we deal with these excommunicated men. Does this strike anyone else as just a little bit cultish?

Originally Posted by KathleenElsie forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
I also know what Bishop Williamson meant in that women are not meant to go to any university.

You took this so far out of context that it is almost laughable. Please look at the whole post and not one sentence you wanted to use to make a false point with.

 

[SanJudas]

The SSPX are about as extreme as Catholics of the 1940 and 1950s.

So, what was once the mainstream (eg. SSPX-style Catholicism) is now the “extreme” only relative to the liberal slide of the conservatives and liberals.

Yes, GerardP, quite right. I just mentioned on another thread that this comparison can be easily made by reading Catholic literature from 50-1900 years ago. What today is considered “extreme radical traditionalism” was good Catholic common sense for generations of our ancestors.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Yes, GerardP, quite right. I just mentioned on another thread that this comparison can be easily made by reading Catholic literature from 50-1900 years ago. What today is considered “extreme radical traditionalism” was good Catholic common sense for generations of our ancestors.

 

[Margarite]

I didn’t finish my last post, but to finish it now,

We ARE being Christian. We love the Church, and we are defending her, we don’t want anyone to hurt the Church in any way, so we strive to defend her with everything we have. Christ became angry and threw out the money changers, he called the pharisees names because what he called them was true. We call the SSPX names that are also true, is this not Christ like? No, seriously, we are not being un-Christ-like, we are just doing our best to defend Christ and the Church against those who we feel are trying to hurt her.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, GerardP, quite right. I just mentioned on another thread that this comparison can be easily made by reading Catholic literature from 50-1900 years ago. What today is considered “extreme radical traditionalism” was good Catholic common sense for generations of our ancestors.

Our anscestors also accepted the Peter held the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Now Bishop Williamson negates many of he beatifications and canonizations after Vatican II. He accepts that Padre Pio’s canonization is valid, but Padre Pio should not be venerated in public because it might lend credence to the other canonizations that Bishop Williamson considers are not valid.

Our anscestors believed that a canonization was an infallible statement by the the Pope, which did not require any other authority but his own. It was only after Vatican I that a system was set in place to study the lives of those who were nominated for canonization. Prior to that, the system was very fluid, meaning that it changed with each popacy. Vatican II wanted to give it some structure, not to write it in stone.

Since Pope Paul VI changed SOME parts of the process for the canonization of Elizabeth Ann Seton and John Paul II shortened the number of years required for the beatification of Mother Teresa, suddenly these post concilliar beatifications and canonizations have lost the virtue of infallbility.

The infalibility of a cononization does not rest on the process, but on the authority of Peter who holds the Keys of the Kingdom and his authority to bind and unbind. The process was created for man, not man for the process.

As I shared with a good friend, St. Francis of Assisi was never beatified, but was canonized 18 months after his death by Pope Honorius, who had all kinds of problems with the Church of his time. That canonization has never been called into question as not being infallible. Like this, there are others.

When the leadership of SSPX speaks about tradition, they must look at tradition in the entire picture, not just parts of it.

It is illogical to say that we must subscribe to tradition and something as important as a canonization can be dismissed as not valid, because they are post Vatican II by “liberal” popes. Liberal or not, they have the authority and power to declare someone a saint and this declaration is infallible, because it stems from the office of papacy, not the person who occupies the office.

To suggest to the faithful that they should ignore these canonizations is to lead the faithful away from something that our anscestors held sacred and dear to their hearts, the love and veneration of saints.

How is such an idea good for the faithful today? Isn’t Bishop Williamson changing an idea that was alays in place, tha the Pontiff has the power to infallibly declare someone a saint, regardless of the Pontiff’s personal sanctity?

JR

 

[Margarite]

Also, to those who say that women should not go to college because they should be good wives.

Nuns are not good wives, they do not have children, and yet the SSPX supports them. Are only men to be allowed to teach children in high school? because a college degree is required to teach highschool. Are women to be denied the right to know about their faith? The best way to learn about the faith is to attend a Catholic Liberal Arts college like Wyoming Catholic College, Thomas Aquinas College, or Christendom College. Are women to be denied the right to study the faith? St. Catharine of Sienna was denied the right to learn even how to read and write because of it was unthinkable for women of that time, yet Christ deemed it good to teach her himself, not only how to read, but St. Catherine was also one of the most brilliant theological minds of her day and is now a Doctor of the Church. But I forgot, maybe the SSPX doesn’t hold with such an outlandish idea? I mean Christ must have been out of his mind to teach a woman! And all those popes and bishops she wrote letters to, they must have been out of their minds to listen to her.

Now, I do understand that people like to blame their sins on the situations they are in, but that is just another sin. I am a girl, I went to a public high school because the Catholic one in Vegas is worse than the worst public one, sure, there were lots of bad kids doing drugs, sex, and alcohol, but there were plenty of good kids too. If I had decided to do any of that stuff, I could have blamed it on my surroundings, but that would have been wrong, it would have been completely my own fault. I didn’t give into this stuff, and I cannot credit my surroundings with that either. There are also many choices available especially in college. The way my family is doing it is we will all (girls and boys) go to at least two years of Catholic liberal arts college at Wyoming Catholic College, then we will go on to whatever university we want to go to where we can major in what we want to do. I think I will be an architect; my next sister an engineer, or biomedical-engineer; my next sister a dentist, and my brothers are still too young to decide. But ultimately we know that we have a vocation to be nuns, sisters, wives, or single women. God has destined us for some work, and we are just going to prepare ourselves in the best way possible. If I am to be a stay-at-home mom then GREAT! What a wonderful life I will have, but if my family falls into hard times, I will have something to fall back on. If I am to be a nun, then maybe I will be able to use my education to help, otherwise, I spent a good few years learning. If I am to be single, then I have a way to support myself, and help my brothers and sisters if they need help.
Have any of you heard of the Sister Servants? They are a wonderful group of nuns in Birmingham, and one of their sisters was the daughter of a man who owned his own construction company, and she got some sort of degree in construction. Now that order is building a beautiful convent and retreat house, and she is able to help them. She makes sure that everything is well done, she is able to help the order save money by taking charge of allot of the construction, she even trained the other sisters and they all roofed their own convent because that was the cheapest way for them to do it. They are using the gifts and experiences that God gave them to do God’s work. The money they have is all given to them by benefactors, so think how appreciative those benefactors are that the nuns are stretching their money as far as it can go and building a beautiful place at the same time.
God is good, he gives us gifts, and he gives us many opportunities to develop those gifts.

Right now, my father makes a good living, but he doesn’t make enough for a family of eight to live. He is an attorney, but he still can’t make enough, so my mother has to work. She grew up in a SSPX family where girls didn’t go to college, so she doesn’t have a degree. The only jobs available to her are very manual jobs. She has very bad verocose veins in her legs, so she can’t stand very much during the day, so working in department stores is out, working at a grocery store doesn’t make enough, sewing for the casinos wouldn’t make enough money, she passed the realtor test, but in this slump, it just doesn’t cut it, she could go down and work at the casinos if she wasn’t Catholic. If she was out there looking for a job, she couldn’t, she wouldn’t be able to find a job that made enough. Luckily, I have an Uncle who owns a buisness here in Vegas, and he hired her to be a Sales rep to the casinos.
Don’t you see, that it is important for women to be able educated?
An aunt of mine had an abusive husband so she left him. She has no education, so she has to rely on the charity of her family to support her and her five children.
(Please don’t offer your sympathy, I am just using these as examples. Life gave me these as examples, so I use them.)

Education is the smart thing to do. My sister has SAT scores and a GPA high enough for her to easily get into Harvard or any other college that she may want to get into. Why should she be denied this wonderful chance simply because some bishop somewhere doesn’t think she should go? No! She should go, God gave her that amazing brain, and the desire to study Biology and Engineering! Why should she waste what HE gave her? Why shouldn’t she develop her talent? Yes, first she will go to Wyoming Catholic College, every Catholic (male or female) should do this before attending any large college or university, but she shouldn’t stop there, God gave her too much brain and desire for that. I am not saying that she has to spend her life as a biomedical engineer, but she should develop the skill because God gave her the desire and ability. She may go right out of school into the convent, or become a stay-at-home mom, but she still knows that she developed what God gave her to the best of her ability. What if she goes on and stays single because that is God’s will, and what if she is the one who is able to cure cancer? Or what if she is the one who invents an extremely comfortable prosthetic leg? Or what if she is the one to develop some tool that will save thousands of lives in surgery? Or what if God just wanted her to fine-tune her abilities and desires so that she could pass it onto her sons?
How can you deny God this wonderful instrument? I just can’t understand!
I better stop jabbering before I run out of space.

 

[Margarite]

Our anscestors also accepted the Peter held the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Now Bishop Williamson negates many of he beatifications and canonizations after Vatican II. He accepts that Padre Pio’s canonization is valid, but Padre Pio should not be venerated in public because it might lend credence to the other canonizations that Bishop Williamson considers are not valid.

Our anscestors believed that a canonization was an infallible statement by the the Pope, which did not require any other authority but his own. It was only after Vatican I that a system was set in place to study the lives of those who were nominated for canonization. Prior to that, the system was very fluid, meaning that it changed with each popacy. Vatican II wanted to give it some structure, not to write it in stone.

Since Pope Paul VI changed SOME parts of the process for the canonization of Elizabeth Ann Seton and John Paul II shortened the number of years required for the beatification of Mother Teresa, suddenly these post concilliar beatifications and canonizations have lost the virtue of infallbility.

The infalibility of a cononization does not rest on the process, but on the authority of Peter who holds the Keys of the Kingdom and his authority to bind and unbind. The process was created for man, not man for the process.

As I shared with a good friend, St. Francis of Assisi was never beatified, but was canonized 18 months after his death by Pope Honorius, who had all kinds of problems with the Church of his time. That canonization has never been called into question as not being infallible. Like this, there are others.

When the leadership of SSPX speaks about tradition, they must look at tradition in the entire picture, not just parts of it.

It is illogical to say that we must subscribe to tradition and something as important as a canonization can be dismissed as not valid, because they are post Vatican II by “liberal” popes. Liberal or not, they have the authority and power to declare someone a saint and this declaration is infallible, because it stems from the office of papacy, not the person who occupies the office.

To suggest to the faithful that they should ignore these canonizations is to lead the faithful away from something that our anscestors held sacred and dear to their hearts, the love and veneration of saints.

How is such an idea good for the faithful today? Isn’t Bishop Williamson changing an idea that was alays in place, tha the Pontiff has the power to infallibly declare someone a saint, regardless of the Pontiff’s personal sanctity?

JR

GREAT POST!

 

[GerardP]

Our anscestors believed that a canonization was an infallible statement by the the Pope, which did not require any other authority but his own. It was only after Vatican I that a system was set in place to study the lives of those who were nominated for canonization. Prior to that, the system was very fluid, meaning that it changed with each popacy. Vatican II wanted to give it some structure, not to write it in stone.

St. Thomas stated that canonizations as infallible statements were a “pious belief” Any attempt to call an canonization infallible runs into the difficulty that it’s a public revelation. And that has closed since the death of the last Apostle.

 

[GerardP]

To suggest to the faithful that they should ignore these canonizations is to lead the faithful away from something that our anscestors held sacred and dear to their hearts, the love and veneration of saints.

How is such an idea good for the faithful today? Isn’t Bishop Williamson changing an idea that was alays in place, tha the Pontiff has the power to infallibly declare someone a saint, regardless of the Pontiff’s personal sanctity?

JR

Bishop Williamson has doubts but has never positively denied the validity of some of the canonizations from the “Saint Factory” as Cardinal Oddi called it.

I personally heard him refer to St. John Neumann as “Saint” John Nuemann on one occasion.

I agree with him. JPII made such a hash out of so many procedures that I think the odds are good that some of them should be re-examined by the authorities.

I also think it would be a mistake for Mother Teresa to be canonized since she imbibed in some Syncretist and Indiffferentist ideas.

 

[GerardP]

Also, to those who say that women should not go to college because they should be good wives.

Are women to be denied the right to study the faith? St. Catharine of Sienna was denied the right to learn even how to read and write because of it was unthinkable for women of that time, yet Christ deemed it good to teach her himself, not only how to read, but St. Catherine was also one of the most brilliant theological minds of her day and is now a Doctor of the Church. But I forgot, maybe the SSPX doesn’t hold with such an outlandish idea?

Please. Just carefully listen to this interview on these topics that Colleen Hammond asked Bishop Williamson and challenged him on.

You may not agree fully but you’ll at least know that he’s giving a rational, integrated position.

Scroll down till you see the link and either download or listen to the podcast.

heartlandcatholic.org/podcast.aspx

 

[JReducation]

St. Thomas stated that canonizations as infallible statements were a “pious belief” Any attempt to call an canonization infallible runs into the difficulty that it’s a public revelation. And that has closed since the death of the last Apostle.

Unfortunately, St. Thomas was neither a pope nor a bishop’s council. This is his belief at a time when there was only one official canonization, that of St. Francis of Assisi.

Canonizations became formalized after St. Thomas was dead. If they had not become formalized, he mya not have been canonized, because it was very fluid up until the canonization of St. Francis of Assisi who came less thatn 50 years before Thomas.

Neither is St. Thomas infallible. In fact he had doubts about infallibility and the Immaculate Conception as well.

Infallibility, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary came long after the Apostles and long after St. Thomas.

St. Thomas worked wiht what he had at hand. The fact that this developed after his time, does not take any validity from it.

JR

 

[Margarite]

Canonization of Saints?
Question from Denise on 5/1/2008: ewtn.com/images/printer.gif Does the Canonization of Saints fall under papal infallibility? Thank you.
EWTN Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 5/23/2008: This is a quote from a decree of canonization: “Therefore, today, in a solemn Mass in St. Peter’s Square, before an immense multitude of the faithful, we have pronounced the following formula: In honor of the Blessed and Undivided Trinity, for the uplifting of Catholic faith and the increase of Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and that of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and our own, after careful deliberation, having called frequently upon God’s help, and with the advice of many of our brother Bishops, we declare and define Blessed So and So to be a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of the Saints, ordaining that, throughout the universal Church, he be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And what we have declared, we desire to be in force both now and in the future, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.”
This is the infallibility canon: “Canon 749, §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held. §2. The college of bishops also possesses infallibility in teaching when the bishops gathered together in an ecumenical council exercise the magisterium as teachers and judges of faith and morals who declare for the universal Church that a doctrine of faith or morals is to be held definitively; or when dispersed throughout the world but preserving the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter and teaching authentically together with the Roman Pontiff matters of faith or morals, they agree that a particular proposition is to be held definitively. §3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.”
It seems like I have been asked this question before, and to be honest, I can’t remember how I answered it.
Certainly the pope is invoking his supreme authority in canonizing. Certainly there is no possibility for a Catholic to reject in good conscience such a declaration.
A problem with saying, however, that a canonization is infallible is that infallibility extends to matters of faith and morals, that is, a doctrine that is part of the deposit of faith. Is the canonization of a particular individual part of the deposit of faith?
Also, in terms of the law, the canon requires that something be declared as “definitive.” The actual papal decree canonizing the saint does not use the term “definitive.”

 

[JReducation]

Bishop Williamson has doubts but has never positively denied the validity of some of the canonizations from the “Saint Factory” as Cardinal Oddi called it.

I personally heard him refer to St. John Neumann as “Saint” John Nuemann on one occasion.

I agree with him. JPII made such a hash out of so many procedures that I think the odds are good that some of them should be re-examined by the authorities.

I also think it would be a mistake for Mother Teresa to be canonized since she imbibed in some Syncretist and Indiffferentist ideas.

Once a pope canonizes it cannot be undone. A beatification and a canonization is an infallible statement that comes from the authority that Peter has to bind and unbind and as the keeper of the Keys.

Whether or not you believe that John Paul II botched up things, is your right to do so. But as Benedict has made clear in his communication with Bishop Fellay, the SSPX does not have the right to question the Pope.

Mother Teresa’s beatification is a done deal. It is infallible that she is a Blessed and so it must be believed by every Catholic who subscribes to infallibility. If she is ever canonized, then that must also be believed.

As to bishop Williamson, he has publically denied the validity of the beatification of John XXIII and has said that the canonizaiton of Padre Pio is valid, but that the SSPX should not publically venerate Padre Pio so as not to give credence to any of the other canonizations post Vatican II.

Is this not a mistaken approach if you believe in the infallibility of the papacy?

Is this not a mistaken approach, if you claim that tradition must be upheld?

Is the form the essence of the canonization in the process or in the decree?

As I said before, prior to Vatican I we had not organized process, yet we had canonizations since the 1200s. Do we deny them because they did not follow the process? Do we deny them because some of those popes were nut jobs? Is Christ’s power limited by the humanity of the pope? Even the SSPX does not belief this.

The only ones who believe this are the Protestants, not even the Orthodox Christians.

Read Bishop Williamsons’ logic on the Padre Pio canonization and observe how he leaves out Mother Teresa in his list of questionable beatifications. Because to include Mother Teresa in his list would bring the house down. Not only Catholics, but non Catholics as well believe in her sanctity.

In conclusion, these more or less Conciliar “canonizations” are correspondingly fallible, and are automatically not infallible. Obviously, Padre Pio was an entirely Traditional Saint, and we need not doubt the worthiness of his canonization. However, it might be advisable not to profit by his Newchurch “canonization” to venerate him officially or in public, insofar as that might be liable to give to other Newchurch “canonizations” a credit which is not due to them.

sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/December6-2002.htm

Catholic bishops do not have the authority to make these kinds of judgement calls, even in council, much less a single bishop. This is one area that is reserved exclusively for the Pope.

With all due respect to Bishop Williamson, this is Protestant language.

I mean it when I say with all due respect. Because regardless of the fact that he shows little respect for the Popes of the late 20th and early 21st century, I do believe in showing respects for the sucessors of the apostles.

Even though he may be an excommunicated successor, he is still a bishop and I will show him the respect that is due to his office. However, I believe that he is mistakena nd that he is speaking in a manner that is not part of the office of a bishop.

A bishop must always speak in communion with the Pope in matters that are infallible, such as the beatification or canonization of an individual.

You may dislike certain qualities of a particular saint or blessed, but once the decree has been issued you accept it.

JR

 

[Margarite]

Please. Just carefully listen to this interview on these topics that Colleen Hammond asked Bishop Williamson and challenged him on.

You may not agree fully but you’ll at least know that he’s giving a rational, integrated position.

Scroll down till you see the link and either download or listen to the podcast.

heartlandcatholic.org/podcast.aspx

I will try to tomorrow when I won’t cause noise in my sleeping house. Good night all.

 

[JReducation]

This is a quote from a decree of canonization: "Therefore, today, in a solemn Mass in St. Peter’s Square, before an immense multitude of the faithful, we have pronounced the following formula: In honor of the Blessed and Undivided Trinity, for the uplifting of Catholic faith and the increase of Christian life, by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and that of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and our own, after careful deliberation, having called frequently upon God’s help, and with the advice of many of our brother Bishops, we declare and define Blessed So and So to be a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of the Saints, ordaining that, throughout the universal Church, he be devoutly honored among the Saints. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And what we have declared, we desire to be in force both now and in the future, anything to the contrary notwithstanding.

Observe the Pope is making a pronouncement, invokes the authority of Jesus Christ, Peter and Paul and to his own authority. He is making it clear that this is an authoritative statement.

Then notice that he uses the words “declare and define”. When you define, you are given something a meaning that cannot be changed.

This is the infallibility canon: "Canon 749, §1. By virtue of his office, the Supreme Pontiff possesses infallibility in teaching when as the supreme pastor and teacher of all the Christian faithful, who strengthens his brothers and sisters in the faith, he proclaims by definitive act

 

[ethelzguy]

The SSPX are about as extreme as Catholics of the 1940 and 1950s.

So the SSPX IS a society of “Cafeteria Catholics”, picking and choosing the Church of the 40’s and 50’s, as opposed to the 1900+ years ahead of it, and the 50+ years after?

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[KathleenElsie]

So the SSPX IS a society of “Cafeteria Catholics”, picking and choosing the Church of the 40’s and 50’s, as opposed to the 1900+ years ahead of it, and the 50+ years after?

Thanks for clearing that up.

As the saying goes “Don’t be so Silly”.

If you want to quote something don’t take it out of context.

Originally Posted by GerardP forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Actually you are referring to the sedevacantists. The SSPX are about as extreme as Catholics of the 1940 and 1950s.

The idea that “the mean between extremes is the truth” doesn’t hold.

Pope St.Pius X talked about a “species of compromise between progressive and conservative forces” that basically were a fast and slow form of liberalism. Extreme liberals push the boundaries, the Conservatives hold back and compromise with the middle. The liberals move further down the road, the conservative once again compromises to the middle.

So, what was once the mainstream (eg. SSPX-style Catholicism) is now the “extreme” only relative to the liberal slide of the conservatives and liberals.